JUDGEMENT : This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner assailing inter alia a resolution adopted on 01.07.2021 in a special meeting convened for the purpose of discussing a motion of no confidence in the petitioner as the President of 60 No. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner has also challenged a notice dated 19.06.2021 whereby 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition for convening a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner who was the President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner has also challenged a notice dated 25.06.2021 issued by the Secretary, 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat whereby all the stake holders were put to notice that a special meeting had been convened on 01.07.2021 to discuss a motion of no confidence in the President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the writ petition can be exposited as follows : In the General Panchayat Election held in the year 2018, the petitioner got elected to the post of President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Gaon Panchayat’, for brevity at places] under Barkhetri Anchalik Panchayat and Nalbari Zilla Parishad, District – Nagaon. The respondent nos. 7 to 13 were also elected as Ward Members from different Wards of the Gaon Panchayat in the said Panchayat Election. After the declaration of the results, the respondent no. 7 herein has been elected as the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat. 3. The petitioner has averred that she was informed by the respondent no. 6 i.e. the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 24.06.2021 that 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat had submitted a requisition dated 19.06.2021 seeking holding of a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence in her. As the petitioner was suffering from certain ailments, she asked the respondent no. 6 to wait for 10/12 days so as to enable her to attend such special meeting after improvement in her health condition. But the respondent no. 6 along with the peon of the Gaon Panchayat met the petitioner and served the requisition with the assurance that the respondent no. 6 to wait for 10/12 days so as to enable her to attend such special meeting after improvement in her health condition. But the respondent no. 6 along with the peon of the Gaon Panchayat met the petitioner and served the requisition with the assurance that the respondent no. 6 would hold the meeting only after the petitioner would accord her formal approval. The petitioner has contended that the respondent no. 6 had, however, without waiting for her formal approval and improvement in her health condition issued a notice dated 25.06.2021, whereby, it was informed to the stake-holders that a special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion in the President of the Gaon Panchayat had been convened on 01.07.2021. As the petitioner was undergoing treatment, she stated to have submitted an application on 29.06.2021 before the respondent no. 6 to postpone the meeting, which was already convened on 01.07.2021 by the notice dated 25.06.2021. The respondent no. 6 did not take any action on the said letter dated 29.06.2021 of the petitioner and went on to hold the special meeting on 01.07.2021. 4. I have heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 & 6; Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7-13. 5. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the resolution of no confidence against the petitioner was passed in the special meeting convened and held on 01.07.2021 in absence of the petitioner. He has contended that the respondent no. 6 did not bring the requisition containing the request to convene the special meeting submitted by the 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat through the official channel on 24.06.2021, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondent no. 6 had also disobeyed the instruction given by the petitioner to defer the date of the special meeting given by her through her letter dated 29.06.2021. It is submitted by Mr. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat through the official channel on 24.06.2021, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondent no. 6 had also disobeyed the instruction given by the petitioner to defer the date of the special meeting given by her through her letter dated 29.06.2021. It is submitted by Mr. Ali that in a meeting held to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner in her capacity as the President of the Gaon Panchayat, the presence of the petitioner was a necessity and as such, the resolution passed against her in the special meeting convened and held on 01.07.2021 is liable to be set aside along with the impugned notice dated 25.06.2021. 6. Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that he has received the records in original. On the basis of the records at his disposal, he has submitted that the respondent no. 6 had placed the requisition submitted by the 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat before the petitioner on 24.06.2021 and the petitioner after perusal of the same, had accorded her approval to convene a special meeting at 11-00 a.m. on 01.07.2021. By placing the peon book, Mr. Roy has submitted that the petitioner had also subscribed her signature in the peon book on 24.06.2021 acknowledging receipt of the requisition seeking holding of the special meeting. He has further submitted that the notice dated 25.06.2021 had also been received by the petitioner by subscribing her signature in the peon book on 25.06.2021. It is his further submission that in the special meeting convened and held on 01.07.2021, the petitioner was very much present during the proceedings and as such, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was absent in the special meeting does not hold any water since the petitioner had participated in the deliberations of the special meeting. It was only after the majority of two-third members of the Gaon Panchayat had expressed lack of confidence in her through the secret ballots, the petitioner had walked out of the meeting without putting her signature in the proceedings book. 7. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. It was only after the majority of two-third members of the Gaon Panchayat had expressed lack of confidence in her through the secret ballots, the petitioner had walked out of the meeting without putting her signature in the proceedings book. 7. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7-13 has submitted that the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, more particularly, Section 15 thereof is silent as regards the necessity of the presence of the office bearer, whether he/she is the President or the Vice-President, in the special meeting convened for the purpose of discussing the motion of no confidence against such office bearer. In the case in hand, the petitioner had accorded her approval to convene the special meeting on 01.07.2021 and thereafter, had also received the notice dated 25.06.2021 whereby she was put to notice that the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against her had been convened on 01.07.2021. The minutes of the special meeting also go to show that the petitioner participated in the deliberations in the special meeting and had walked out only after the members of the Gaon Panchayat had passed the motion against the petitioner by resorting to secret ballots. It is his submission that a person who is facing a motion of no confidence, has to face the motion. Once a person has been put to notice regarding want of confidence upon him/her, the statutory provision has not made it a condition that such an office bearer has to be present in such a special meeting. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record brought by the parties through their pleadings. I have also perused the records which have been produced by Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department. 9. The issues involved in this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The requisition expressing want of confidence against the petitioner was submitted by 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat on 19.06.2021. The said requisition was addressed to the President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat with copies to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district. The respondent no. The requisition expressing want of confidence against the petitioner was submitted by 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat on 19.06.2021. The said requisition was addressed to the President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat with copies to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district. The respondent no. 6 had made a note on 21.06.2021 in the office file to the effect that on 19.06.2021, the requisition was submitted seeking the approval of the President to hold the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence. By putting the said note, the respondent no. 6 sought approval of the petitioner to convene and hold the special meeting. The note-sheets have further indicated that on 24.06.2021, the petitioner had made an endorsement on the said note-sheet to the effect that she had accorded approval to hold the special meeting at 11-00 a.m. on 01.07.2021 [Thursday]. It was only after such approval in her own handwriting and under her signature, the notice dated 25.06.2021 was issued under the hand of the respondent no. 6 informing all the stake-holders that as per the approval of the President, the special meeting would be held at 11-00 a.m. on 01.07.2021 [Thursday] at the office of the Gaon Panchayat. 10. The proceedings of the special meeting, convened and held on 01.07.2021, were recorded in the proceedings book maintained by the respondent no. 6. The minutes of the meeting had recorded that the petitioner was present in the special meeting and explained her stand in respect of the complaints alleged against her. The minutes have further reflected that the special meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat. After discussion, it was resolved to decide the fate of the motion through secret ballot papers and accordingly, the members of the Gaon Panchayat cast their votes through ballot papers. After completion of casting of votes, the ballot box was opened and in the counting, it was found that 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members voted in favour of the motion and 3 [three] nos. of Ward Members voted against motion. As the motion was passed by two-third majority, a resolution was recorded in the proceedings book that the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner was passed. 11. of Ward Members voted in favour of the motion and 3 [three] nos. of Ward Members voted against motion. As the motion was passed by two-third majority, a resolution was recorded in the proceedings book that the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner was passed. 11. It is in the above backdrop of events, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are to be considered. The peon book of the Gaon Panchayat placed before the Court goes to indicate that the petitioner had received the requisition dated 19.06.2021 submitted by the 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat under her signature on 24.06.2021. The official records also go to indicate that the petitioner had accorded her approval on 24.06.2021 to convene the special meeting on 01.07.2021. The peon book further goes to indicate that the petitioner had received the notice dated 25.06.2021 on 26.06.2021 under her signature. 12. The petitioner was elected directly for the post of President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat in terms of the provisions of Clause [b] of sub-section [1] of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 [‘the Panchayat Act’, for short]. 13. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 15 as well as Section 18 of the Panchayat Act. Section 15 of the Panchayat Act has provided for the matter of no confidence against the President and the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat. It is provided, inter alia, in sub-section [1] of Section 15 that every President of a Gaon Panchayat shall deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by two third majority of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. It has also provided for the procedure for convening a special meeting. As per Section 15[1], a special meeting is to be convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with the approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat and shall be delivered to the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat with information to the Deputy Commissioner of the District [Section 15(2)]. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat and shall be delivered to the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat with information to the Deputy Commissioner of the District [Section 15(2)]. Sub-section [5] of Section 18 of the Panchayat Act has made it mandatory that the voting in a special meeting, where a no confidence motion is discussed, the matter has to be decided by the secret ballot. In the case in hand, the above requirements are found to have been fulfilled. 14. Sub-section [1] of Section 15 of the Panchayat Act speaks about vacation of the office of the President or the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat, as the case may be, in case of expressing no confidence in him/her by a majority of 2/3rd of the total numbers of members of the Gaon Panchayat. On the other hand, sub-section [3] of Section 15 of the Panchayat Act mentions about removal of a President or a Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat from office by the concerned Anchalik Panchayat with the approval of the Zilla Parishad for misconduct of his/her duties or for negligence or for incapacity to perform his/her duties or for being persistently remiss in the discharge of or for being guilty of any disgraceful conduct and no such President or Vice-President shall be removed from office unless he/she is given reasonable opportunity to furnish explanation to the Anchalik Panchayat. From a conjoint reading of the afore-stated two sub-sections of Section 15, it is clearly discernible that vacation of the office of President or Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat, as the case may be, under sub-section [1] of Section 15 cannot be equated in law to the removal of a President or Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat, as the case may be, under sub-section [3] of Section 15. The vacation of office of President or Vice-President due to an action under sub-section [1] of Section 15 is not stricto sensu removal from office, but a removal resulting from loss of confidence. It is only relatable to no-confidence simpliciter and is not removal relatable to any kind of misconduct. The vacation of office of President or Vice-President due to an action under sub-section [1] of Section 15 is not stricto sensu removal from office, but a removal resulting from loss of confidence. It is only relatable to no-confidence simpliciter and is not removal relatable to any kind of misconduct. Thus, a vacation of office of the President of a Gaon Panchayat under sub-section [1] of Section 15 is completely different from a removal from the office of the President under sub-section [3] of Section 15. While it is necessary in the case of a removal under sub-section [3] to set out the ground or charge on which it is based, it is not necessary to set out a ground or charge in case of a motion of no-confidence. Although a ground may be mentioned while passing a motion of no-confidence, the existence of a ground is not a pre-requisite in a motion of no-confidence. The only requirement in a motion of no-confidence against an office-bearer is that the office-bearer against whom such motion is passed has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite majority of members. But, in case of removal of an office-bearer from the office, there is necessity of meeting two requirements, firstly, presence of grounds like misconduct or negligence or incapacity, etc. and secondly, of providing a reasonable opportunity to the office-bearer to furnish his explanation. 15. Be that as it may, there appears no necessity to dilate further on the issue of necessity of presence of the office-bearer throughout the course of a meeting held for discussing a motion of no-confidence against such office-bearer in view of presence of convincing materials on records which have established the facts that [a] the special meeting was convened pursuant to the approval accorded by the petitioner on 24.06.2021; [b] the petitioner had received the notice dated 25.06.2021 whereby she was put to notice that the special meeting to discuss the motion of no-confidence would be held on 01.07.2021; and [c] after having received the notice dated 25.06.2021, the petitioner had attended the special meeting held on 01.07.2021. 16. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pratap Chandra Mehta vs. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in [2011] 9 SCC 573. 16. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pratap Chandra Mehta vs. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in [2011] 9 SCC 573. The subject-matter considered in that case was a resolution of no-confidence motion passed against the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the Treasurer respectively of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. A special meeting was called for to discuss the motion of no-confidence against those office-bearers and in the said special meeting, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were present at the initial stage of the meeting. There was some discussion on the issues and after some time, the Chairman/Vice-Chairman had walked out of the meeting. Thereafter, the Advocate General of the State had to preside over the meeting and the no-confidence motion was stated to have been passed by the requisite majority of the members present in the meeting. Commenting on the approach, taken by the Chairman/Vice-Chairman, of leaving the special meeting in the midway, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held that the approach adopted by them was ex-facie untenable and without any basis. It was the duty of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman to face the no-confidence motion, as they were elected office-bearers and if they had lost the confidence of the majority to continue as such office-bearers and a no-confidence motion had been moved against them by following due procedure, they were expected to face the consequences thereof and the same only would have served the ends of democratic governance and proper functioning of the State Bar Council. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, thus, held that even on that ground, any challenge to the passing of the no-confidence motion cannot succeed. 17. Reverting back to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, this Court is of the view that the observations made in Pratap Chandra Mehta [supra] are also applicable to the case in hand. It is, thus, not open for the petitioner to mount any challenge in respect of passing the motion of no-confidence against her in the special meeting held on 01.07.2021 which the petitioner had attended. Apart from attending, she also participated in the deliberation but walked out from the meeting only when the requisite majority passed the motion of no-confidence against her through secret ballot, without signing in the proceedings book. Apart from attending, she also participated in the deliberation but walked out from the meeting only when the requisite majority passed the motion of no-confidence against her through secret ballot, without signing in the proceedings book. In view of the discussion made and for the reasons assigned hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition are bereft of any merits. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.